Call it what you want -- anti-gay or religious rights -- but if Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs a controversial bill, you might not be calling Arizona the home of the 2015 Super Bowl.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S.B. 1062, is the current controversy du jour out of Arizona, and the National Football League is with the opposition.

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today. “We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time.”

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
The Arizona Super Bowl Host committee released a statement saying it disagreed with the bill and its impact on Arizona’s economy.

“On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential,” a committee spokesperson said. “We do not support this legislation.”

Arizona is currently slated to host the 2015 Super Bowl at Glendale’s University of Phoenix Stadium.

Opponents of the bill contend that it will allow Arizona businesses to refuse service to homosexual customers.

But, as with most bills in Congress, the attack ads have little to do with the actual legislation.

Proponents of the bill claim that no, businesses will not have carte blanche to refuse service to anyone they disagree with based on religious grounds.

Specifically, proponents claim that there is nothing in Arizona’s current laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against anyone — and yet, strangely enough, discrimination isn’t happening.

Apparently, businesses in Arizona have wanted to discriminate but have just been waiting for a bill to allow them to do so — which this bill does not. Also, what business would quietly wait to discriminate?

“Business owners do not want to deny service to gays,” the Christian Post wrote. “This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive — turning away customers is no way to run a business.”

Cosmo's post earlier was an interesting one. Between her support of the South's Civil War efforts, her disagreement that businesses should be required by law to cater to individuals regardless of race, and her position in this thread (which is contradictory to some pretty basic libertarian concepts), I'm beginning to think she's just a bigot, and anything that impacts her (or another's) ability to act in a bigoted or discriminatory fashion is going to be opposed by her.

We've long concluded that she's a complete whacko, but now I'm thinking bigoted whacko as well.

It's not to say that all libertarians are bigoted, but if you look back at history, some bigots have found ideological justification or at least shelter for the sentiment they harbor in that movement. (That's not to say you can't find it in others, but it would provide a convenient veneer for whatever you wanted to practice)

If you look at the Ron Paul newsletters and/or the bigoted things authored by Magda's hero Lew Rockwell back in the pre-internet age, some of which survives, it could make one wonder.

I tend to think the truth is more along the lines of Magda deciding long ago that she wanted to be a part of this particular fringe group, and then attempted to adopt all its ideologies. Her not being able to argue for them cogently is due to the lack of a comprehensive worldview underpinning them. It's simple to do the label-it-and-demonize-it argumentation style she usually employs here, but when challenged you get the tapdance we've seen in this thread.

It's not to say that all libertarians are bigoted, but if you look back at history, some bigots have found ideological justification or at least shelter for the sentiment they harbor in that movement. (That's not to say you can't find it in others, but it would provide a convenient veneer for whatever you wanted to practice)

If you look at the Ron Paul newsletters and/or the things authored by Magda's hero Lew Rockwell back in the pre-internet age, some of which survives, it could make one wonder.

I tend to think the truth is more along the lines of Magda deciding long ago that she wanted to be a part of this particular fringe group, and then attempted to adopt all its ideologies. Her not being able to argue for them cogently is due to the lack of a comprehensive worldview underpinning them. It's simple to do the label-it-and-demonize-it argumentation style she usually employs here, but when challenged you get the tapdance we've seen in this thread.

I'm a paleo-conservative --not a libertarian. Lew Rockwell, a true and complete libertarian is not my hero. I read his site because of certain issues. The Paul newsletters were parsed and debated and the true author was eventually unearthed which I posted.

I used to spend a lot of time crafting arguments more carefully but it does use up too much time. So now I post more quickly. And if I think someone is going to tie me up too long, and there are two here, and I don't want to get into something I don't.

If you don't like it you can use ignore. A Christian like you who rarely practices his beliefs should use it.

Why the hell, is the NFL getting so involved in politics these days? This after the penalty for racial slurs being considered. WTF? Pussy league.

Political Correctness at it's finest. It's called being a billion dollar industry and where the $$ is also will be the thugging greedy thieves(ambulance chasers and Marxist 'my rights' lawyers) that use the train of Political Correctness to intimidate and steal the $$ plain and simple.

__________________"All real Americans love the sting of battle and may God have mercy on my enemies because I wont".

'Progressivism' is nothing more than a dressed up co-opted term for 'Marxism'.

Cosmo's post earlier was an interesting one. Between her support of the South's Civil War efforts, her disagreement that businesses should be required by law to cater to individuals regardless of race, and her position in this thread (which is contradictory to some pretty basic libertarian concepts), I'm beginning to think she's just a bigot, and anything that impacts her (or another's) ability to act in a bigoted or discriminatory fashion is going to be opposed by her.

We've long concluded that she's a complete whacko, but now I'm thinking bigoted whacko as well.

What's discriminatory ? Since when does invoking religious freedom that is protected by the Constitution, NOW become discriminatory ? Heterosexuality has no special protected rights in the Constitution so why should Homosexuality ?

See the bigger picture Listo and the scam that gay marriage is in order to gain power(legal special rights) by special interest groups(Gays) in order to continue the march of Progressivism and it's neutering of Judeo/Christian values of this country.

__________________"All real Americans love the sting of battle and may God have mercy on my enemies because I wont".

'Progressivism' is nothing more than a dressed up co-opted term for 'Marxism'.

What's discriminatory ? Since when does invoking religious freedom that is protected by the Constitution, NOW become discriminatory ? Heterosexuality has no special protected rights in the Constitution so why should Homosexuality ?

See the bigger picture Listo and the scam that gay marriage is in order to gain power(legal special rights) by special interest groups(Gays) in order to continue the march of Progressivism and it's neutering of Judeo/Christian values of this country.

I don't agree with the bill. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me the bill would allow exemption from any serious law based on a conflict with religious beliefs. It's too far reaching. I would say that the Mormons have a shot of relocating to Arizona and getting back to polygamy if the bill becomes law, for instance.

The law prevents the state from interfering with individual's free exercise of religion UNLESS:

1. It is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. AND

2. It is the lhe least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Polygamy isn't going to pass that test, but even more importantly, polygamy requires affirmative action on the part of the state (i.e. a polygamous marriage law) and nothing in this law requires the state to take any action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

Be that as it may, it does legalize discrimination and Arizona is feeling the heat for it. From the private sector. Without involving federal law, or any authority other than the all mighty dollar. I'm amazed that any Conservative would be upset over this.

I don't know why that would amaze you. The method ought to be acceptable to conservatives, but the goal being pursued matters too.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

Cosmo's post earlier was an interesting one. Between her support of the South's Civil War efforts, her disagreement that businesses should be required by law to cater to individuals regardless of race, and her position in this thread (which is contradictory to some pretty basic libertarian concepts), I'm beginning to think she's just a bigot, and anything that impacts her (or another's) ability to act in a bigoted or discriminatory fashion is going to be opposed by her.

We've long concluded that she's a complete whacko, but now I'm thinking bigoted whacko as well.

Yeah, this has been an entertaining BEP beatdown. IIRC, she used to be a pretty hardcore catholic, so maybe those old feelings of homosexuality being a sin still pull deep seeded strings. Maybe she's just homophobic, who knows. I'll but that over the NFL playing politics. Brock pretty much summed that up earlier.

However, props to her for not dropping some "MAH RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS!" horseshit (not that she would, just saying...).

What's discriminatory ? Since when does invoking religious freedom that is protected by the Constitution, NOW become discriminatory ? Heterosexuality has no special protected rights in the Constitution so why should Homosexuality ?

See the bigger picture Listo and the scam that gay marriage is in order to gain power(legal special rights) by special interest groups(Gays) in order to continue the march of Progressivism and it's neutering of Judeo/Christian values of this country.

Lol, missed this before my last post.

Question - have any of you religious homophobes been told that thinking homosexuality is a sin is illegal? Because if you haven't, then your "religious rights" really haven't been stepped on.